Here's a good question for the ME area specialists and Iran watchers out there. Could the loon who serves as Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, be attempting to provoke a military conflict with the United States or Israel in order to provide a pretext for Ahmadinejad to move against his rivals in the power structure, notably Rafsanjani's faction ?

"Some politicians think we had a revolution so that some could hit others in the head and have one party ruling for some time and another party in opposition for some time. But we had a revolution to achieve a lofty goal, on the basis on the Expectation of the Return. Our interpretation is that the hand of the Almighty is putting every piece of the jigsaw puzzle of the future of the world in place in line with the goals of Islam."

Quite neatly, an assertion of his own revolutionary and religious legitimacy and an implication that his rivals lack those credentials.

On the nuclear issue, Iran has in recent months gone out of its way to spurn the IAEA, the Europeans and even Iran's economic partner and nuclear benefactor, Russia. Ahmadinejad, for his part, has been at pains to antagonize and threaten Israel using the most baiting, emotively activating language possible - though this rhetoric also plays to an Iranian constituency back home that Ahmadinejad seeks to cultivate.

Ahmadinejad does not need a military clash with America to solidify the regime's grip but to loosen it. Having recently escaped an assassination attempt and seen his radical loyalists blocked from important posts by the Majlis, the extremist President, like his reformist predecessor Khatami, is being stymied by the corrupt clerical camarilla around "Supreme Guide" Khameini in the Guardian and Expediency Councils and in the parliament. Holding a weak hand in a rigged game, Ahmadinejad can only strengthen his position by upsetting the pieces on the board and finding an excuse - an emergency - to rewrite the rules.

Comments,as always, are welcome.

UPDATE: I see this post was picked up by our British friends at The Spectator- always an honor. They have also linked to William Lind as well.

Considering Rafsanjani basically affirmed Iran's position on this, and in light of Israel's threat to "proactively retaliate" against Iran (my words) as I posted on Simply Left Behind, the answer to your question about provoking internal strife with this is, no.

Are you aware of Russia's plan to arm Iran in (potential) defense against a quick fly-by strike? --

"In a very strong show of support for Tehran, Moscow agreed to sell Iran an air-defense system known as the Tor-M1. Arguably the most advanced system of its kind, the Tor-M1 uses a mobile launcher to track and destroy multiple targets, which can include incoming missiles, aircraft and helicopters."

Russia and China may see Iran as the demarcation line between East and West or may be using Iran to snag the eastern expansion of U.S. influence: many rumblings coming from those two about the "chaos" caused by "democratization" in the region.

Obviously, rather than face the U.S. directly, China and Russia may want to use the issue of Iran to force the U.S.'s hand...

India plays on a similar board but is very interested in economic rather than political ties with Iran (primarily a natural gas pipeline scheduled to be built between the two nations through -- of all places -- Pakistan) and may not want their plans for economic co-evolution with Iran to be knocked awry. India's role in nuclear development is a spur for Iran, anyway: neither nation particularly wants to follow the ideals of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (although Iran actually did sign it...)

Ahmadinejad is doing other things than rattling sabres: like, building stronger ties with the three big Asian powerhouses. (I use "powerhouse" liberally, or in a regional sense, here.)

If I had to make a quick intuitive guess, I would say that Iran's president is picking sides between East and West -- i.e., choosing the East -- whereas whatever opposition he has within Iran wants to continue playing the balancing game between East and West. This may be foolish on his part, since he could be overestimating the connections he's been making with Russia, China, and India; but I fear he may feel a little too bold at the moment. I fear it because he may act on it.

So in a sense, the guesswork in your post isn't too far off from mine.

I think that your commenter Carl may only be considering the nuclear question when so many other questions should be explored.

Seems to me it makes the most sense to take him at his word. His statements indicate that he is working toward and believes in the return of the 12th Imam. Look, this country opens their parliament with chants of "death to America." Excuse me, but there are times when deep, sophisticated analysis is not helpful. Their missiles have "death to America" written on them. What more do you need to know?